Viganò's latest statement part of concerted campaign to attack papacy

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States, is a prickly sort of man. He offered his 11-page dossier and pretended it was an account regarding former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, when it was really just chock-full of score settling, conspiracy theories, bigotry and misinformation.

Sep 07, 2018

Related News

By Michael Sean WintersArchbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former nuncio to the United States, is a prickly sort of man. He offered his 11-page dossier and pretended it was an account regarding former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, when it was really just chock-full of score settling, conspiracy theories, bigotry and misinformation.

Now, upset with a news account about what Pope Francis thought of the meeting with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who went to jail after she refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as required by law, Viganò has published another statement, this time promising to explain what “really happened” regarding the meeting between the Pope and Davis.

Incapable of telling the truth What Viganò actually demonstrates is that he is incapable of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that his anti-gay bigotry has so blinded him, he still mischaracterises the issues surrounding Davis.

Viganò writes: At the end of the dinner, at the Nunciature in Washington, on the evening of September 23, 2015, I told the Pope that I needed him to grant me a half hour, because I wished to bring to his attention, and possible approval, a delicate and easily achievable initiative; that is, to meet personally and in a completely confidential way, out of the media spotlight, with Kim Davis, a clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky, the first American citizen condemned and imprisoned for one week for having exercised her right to conscientious objection.

The proper name for this kind of thing is “sandbag.”

After many people spent months deciding every moment, every venue, every text, every encounter of the pa pal trip, at the end of a dinner Viganò springs this idea on the Pope: Let’s have you meet with Davis.

The Pope asked him to clear it with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, because the pope intuited there might be a political difficulty. Viganò says Parolin was asleep by the time he got to the hotel where he was staying and so, instead, he briefed the cardinal’s two principal assistants, Archbishops Angelo Becciu and Paul Gallagher. They signed off. The meeting happened. Viganò goes on to rant about how all hell broke loose when the meeting became publicised.

Notice anything strange about the account? Viganò speaks about this proposed meeting with three non-Americans: the Argentine pope, the Sardinian sostituto and the British foreign minister. Wouldn’t it have been wise to check in with an American prelate?

The US bishops, at the time, were embroiled in a legal battle with the Obama administration at the time of the papal visit over the contraception insurance mandate. The Holy Father made a visit with the Little Sisters of the Poor, the lead plaintiffs in the case, during his trip as a mark of solidarity in the fight for religious liberty.

Viganò did not mention it in this latest dossier of his, but the fact is that he had consulted with at least one US prelate before the meeting with Davis took place, and he was urged not to do it.

I did not know about the meeting until the story broke a few days after the Pope had left the US. At that time, I spoke with Cardinal Donald Wuerl who, as Archbishop of Washington, had been intimately involved in the planning of every detail of the Pope’s time in the capital city. That conversation was on background but I have asked the cardinal’s permission to put it on the record now given Viganò’s latest statement, and he agreed to do so.

This latest self-revealing dossier comes at the same time that Viganò’s magnum opus of two weeks ago is falling apart. Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register, who played a key role in disseminating Viganò’s original dossier, now appears to be realising that, perhaps, he has been taken for a ride. Now Viganò admits his “memory isn’t helping me know” as to whether his instructions were written or not. This from a man so precise?

Now he says he doesn’t know if the supposed strictures against McCarrick were communicated to Wuerl or not. Another source isn’t sure if there was a decree or just a private suggestion that McCarrick keep a low profile.

For this, the Pope should resign?

The Pope should dignify the charges of this man who seems incapable of telling the truth, get down in the mud with this score-settler, and why? Because Fr Gerald Murray and some conservative Catholic women think Viganò is credible?

This man whom we learned during Vatileaks lied about needing to stay in Rome to care for his brother, except that his brother was not in Rome but in Chicago, was not ill but healthy, and had not spoken with his archbishop brother for years. This man whom his sister now calls a “farabutto” or “scoundrel”.

I have a better idea. Let’s admit it was a huge mistake for Pope Benedict to get rid of the headache Viganò was at the Vatican by making him America’s headache, and let’s thank Pope Francis who actually sacked McCarrick — for preserving the dignity of the papacy by refusing to get into the Viganò gutter.

And, let’s recognise, too, that Viganò is part of a concerted campaign to attack Pope Francis and everything he says must be seen in that distorting light.

(This article first appeared on NCRonline.org, the Website of National Catholic Reporter, and is being used with permission)